作业帮求高手英译中,机译免进
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/11/08 21:40:13
求高手英译中,机译免进
95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should be
liable,in CARU’s opinion,to cause significant damage to the other,creating an obligation of prevention for the first party to eliminate or minimize the risk,in consultation with the other party;or that CARU,having been duly informed,should not have reached a decision in that regard within the prescribed period.
96.The Court notes that the Parties are agreed in considering that the two planned mills were works of sufficient importance to fall within the scope of Article 7 of the 1975 Statute,and thus for
CARU to have been informed of them.The same applies to the plan to construct a port terminal at Fray Bentos for the exclusive use of the Orion (Botnia) mill,which included dredging work and
use of the river bed.
97.However,the Court observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is an obligation to inform CARU in respect of the extraction and use of water from the river for industrial purposes by the Orion (Botnia) mill.Argentina takes the view that the authorization granted by the Uruguayan Ministry of Transport and Public Works on 12 September 2006 concerns an activity of sufficient
importance (“entidad suficiente”) to affect the régime of the river or the quality of its waters and that,in this matter,Uruguay should have followed the procedure laid down in Articles 7 to 12 of the 1975 Statute.For its part,Uruguay maintains that this activity forms an integral part of the Orion (Botnia) mill project as a whole,and that the 1975 Statute does not require CARU to be informed of each step in furtherance of the planned works.
98.The Court points out that while the Parties are agreed in recognizing that CARU should have been informed of the two planned mills and the plan to construct the port terminal at Fray
Bentos,they nonetheless differ as regards the content of the information which should be provided to CARU and as to when this should take place.
99.Argentina has argued that the content of the obligation to inform must be determined in the light of its objective,which is to prevent threats to navigation,the régime of the river or the
quality of the waters.According to Argentina,the plan which CARU must be informed of may be at a very early stage,since it is simply a matter of allowing the Commission to “determine on a
preliminary basis”,within a very short period of 30 days,whether the plan “might cause significant damage to the other party”.It is only in the following phase of the procedure that the substance of the obligation to inform is said to become more extensive.In Argentina’s view,however,CARU must be informed prior to the authorization or implementation of a project on the River Uruguay.
95.To enable the remainder of the procedure to take its course,the parties have includedalternative conditions in the 1975 Statute:either that the activity planned by one party should be
liable,in CARU’s opinion,to cause significant damage to the other,creating an obligation of prevention for the first party to eliminate or minimize the risk,in consultation with the other party;or that CARU,having been duly informed,should not have reached a decision in that regard within the prescribed period.
96.The Court notes that the Parties are agreed in considering that the two planned mills were works of sufficient importance to fall within the scope of Article 7 of the 1975 Statute,and thus for
CARU to have been informed of them.The same applies to the plan to construct a port terminal at Fray Bentos for the exclusive use of the Orion (Botnia) mill,which included dredging work and
use of the river bed.
97.However,the Court observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is an obligation to inform CARU in respect of the extraction and use of water from the river for industrial purposes by the Orion (Botnia) mill.Argentina takes the view that the authorization granted by the Uruguayan Ministry of Transport and Public Works on 12 September 2006 concerns an activity of sufficient
importance (“entidad suficiente”) to affect the régime of the river or the quality of its waters and that,in this matter,Uruguay should have followed the procedure laid down in Articles 7 to 12 of the 1975 Statute.For its part,Uruguay maintains that this activity forms an integral part of the Orion (Botnia) mill project as a whole,and that the 1975 Statute does not require CARU to be informed of each step in furtherance of the planned works.
98.The Court points out that while the Parties are agreed in recognizing that CARU should have been informed of the two planned mills and the plan to construct the port terminal at Fray
Bentos,they nonetheless differ as regards the content of the information which should be provided to CARU and as to when this should take place.
99.Argentina has argued that the content of the obligation to inform must be determined in the light of its objective,which is to prevent threats to navigation,the régime of the river or the
quality of the waters.According to Argentina,the plan which CARU must be informed of may be at a very early stage,since it is simply a matter of allowing the Commission to “determine on a
preliminary basis”,within a very short period of 30 days,whether the plan “might cause significant damage to the other party”.It is only in the following phase of the procedure that the substance of the obligation to inform is said to become more extensive.In Argentina’s view,however,CARU must be informed prior to the authorization or implementation of a project on the River Uruguay.
这篇是关于海牙法院对阿根廷和乌拉圭界河上的造纸厂产生的污染纠纷的裁决.
我尽力翻译了,希望对你有所帮助.
以上
希望对你有所帮助.
我尽力翻译了,希望对你有所帮助.
以上
希望对你有所帮助.